Is there anything in Mormonism that is more ridiculous then a literal belief in the global flood of Noah? Now the two apologists response that I find believable is 1) its a parable, and not literal, 2) It was a massive local flood from the black sea, and the hebrew word for "Earth" is also "Nation," and was simply translated wrong.

Those two reponses are ok with me, and the local flood belief was what I believed for the last 5 years as a believer. But for those who actually believe in a Global Flood, i.e. Ken Ham, isn't that more of a red flag of nonesense beyond anything in Joseph Smith's life. It is so obviously false that I can't believe I literally believed it for 20+ years.

But I can't see anything in JOseph smith's life that is more obviously false then a beleive in a global flood.

How about Smith's claim that he was a prophet? I'd think that is more obviously false than even the global flood.

How about seeing God face to face? Ridiculous. The embellishing climaxing in his assassination? Truly one of the more colorful charlatan's of the 19th Century.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet by claiming he knew something was true about God when God just designed us all to believe in what we can't see.

So, not all of his whoring around, slandering people, or passing off made-up scriptures as the real deal? Not that it makes him a bad guy. Brigham Young was a bad guy.

"It was a massive local flood from the black sea"

Joe Smith said that Noah was in Missouri. Its supposed to be a revelation and is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 107:52-53

For Mormons, that massive local flood would be the Mississippi river and Noah sailed out into the Gulf of Mexico. How he ended up on top of Mount Ararat isn't explained with a local flood.

mikemitchell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> For Mormons, that massive local flood would be the
> Mississippi river and Noah sailed out into the
> Gulf of Mexico. How he ended up on top of Mount
> Ararat isn't explained with a local flood.

Jackson County is in western Missouri, so for Mormons it would
more likely be the Missouri river. But Noah's supposed to have
floated in the ark from Missouri to the Middle East. Can't do
that with a "local flood."

Maybe Noah lived near St. Louis. :) Either way, it would end up in the Mississippi but a local flood in Missouri wouldn't plant the ark on top a Ararat. Then there is the problem of the animals. Forget about how things got to Australia, how did all those animals throughout the world get to Missouri to get on the Ark?

I'm just messing around really. All things Mormon seem so ridiculous to me now.

mikemitchell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm just messing around really. All things Mormon
> seem so ridiculous to me now.

You shake your head at the fact that you once believed these
insane things.

The Church dates the flood to around 2400 B.C.E.

I like to point out that both the Egyptian and Mesopotamian
civilizations flourished long before this date, during this date
and long after this date without being in the least bothered by
the flood. And that their written records (in different
languages--so much for the Tower-of-Babel story) of these eras
have survived for us to read.

It fits something a friend told me years ago: "history is anti-
Mormon."

I replied, "do you mean Mormon history?"

"No," he said, "I mean history."

HA! I love this quote and I'm going to use it.

3,000 BCE, no? The standard Biblical dating is to that period, and I think I remember MD and other LDS books adopting that calculation.

Do you have a source for the later date?

This is taken from his nonsensical "Book of Abraham Translation." There was a figure drawing of an animal walking upright that he identified as a snake.

"Snakes had legs before the Fall."

Good thread; all of Christianity "bears the weight of the Flood," and I remember a class in Egyptology where myths of such nature pre-dated the Bible. This included tales that later became part of the New Testament.

The LDS Church has itself backed into a corner with The Flood, because the Book of Mormon calls it the baptism of the earth. They believe in full immersion, so they can't really get away with trying to explain it in other ways.

They have a little problem too from the Book of Ether about "after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof"

Now Mormons say there were other people in the Americas when Lehi arrived. But those Mormons have come up with two Cumorahs too, etc. etc. Its like children trying to figure out how Santa comes down their chimney when they don't have one.

Mormon scriptures explicitly state the flood was global:

3 Nephi 22:9
"For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee."

Moses 7:42-43
42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;
43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.

And so do modern profits, who cannot lead the church astray, yea never, and whose understanding of mormon doctrine supposedly supersedes any apologist's opinion:

Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 136:
"This ascendancy of the natural man, this rejection of God's call to repentance, has caused the destruction of entire civilizations. In the early generations it is true that those who were sufficiently righteous followed Enoch to a translated life; but only eight, Noah and sons and their four wives, were preserved later through the great flood, all others being drowned…"

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp. 104-05:
"For nearly six thousand years, God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the second coming of the Lord. Some individuals will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head — even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of His strongest children, who will help bear off the kingdom triumphantly. That is where you come in, for you are the generation that must be prepared to meet your God."

Your attention to detail and well thought out response is really appreciated. Regards Alan XL

Noah collected animals from his local area only. In terms of Mormonism, here are a few of weird things they believe:

Baptism for the dead.
Genealogy records are need to save the dead.
All the billions of people of earth will be baptized during the millennium, when there is no such thing as a millennium.
Old men run a large organization when they are senile because of age. They cannot retire.
Everyone gets the same new temple name on the same day, so if we forget, they can ensure we are saved by telling us he new name.

Noah, almost certainly, did not exist.

You do not know this is true. You believe it is true. Noah could have collected the animals needed from local geography, and then God transported the animals two-by-two to other planets before the flood, and then transported them back after the flood was over. They are both beliefs and can't be proven, although, some have uncovered evidence that they found Noah's Ark. Some are flakes, but some are not. It remains unproven.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 05:59PM by anonthegreat.

> Noah could have collected the animals needed
> from local geography, and then God transported the
> animals two-by-two to other planets before the
> flood, and then transported them back after the
> flood was over.

And that strikes you as more probable than that no global flood ever occurred?

No. I believe the evidence we have in other cultures suggests it happened, and the assumptions accommodate the evidence, but that was in the past. What is far more important is what we do today.

I should point out, that all the many stories in different cultures suggest the flood of Noah happened. The idea that God transported the animals to and from other planets for Noah's flood, supports this valid evidence. Do we reason away the evidence? Or do we believe it? We can create whatever beliefs we want, and God doesn't really care about the past. He cares, I believe, about creating our beliefs on valid evidence, whatever the beliefs are.

All the many stories are irreconcilable. They are better explained by locals seeing the fossil evidence as there is abundant marine fossils in most of the world. Then they tell a just-so story to explain it.

The flood is in the fossil record. So big it killed the dinosaurs. It remains in Gaia’s memory, told through tales of the plant medicines. The plants had something to say, so they gave us scriptures. It’s all in the new religion I’m working out.

> I should point out, that all the many stories in
> different cultures suggest the flood of Noah
> happened.

Nonsense.

"All the many stories in different cultures" indicate that there have been floods in many different parts of the world. That is all you can logically infer from them.



> The idea that God transported the
> animals to and from other planets for Noah's
> flood, supports this valid evidence.

You misinterpreted the evidence, which created a logical problem. To overcome that problem, you now posit an extraterrestrial dimension that has Occam spinning in his grave.

The existing evidence indicates that in Egypt, China, Africa, the Americas, and many other places there was no interruption in population and cultural development any time around 3,000 BCE. How could a flood have destroyed all human civilization at that point when those civilizations were not destroyed?



> God doesn't
> really care about the past. He cares, I believe,
> about creating our beliefs on valid evidence. . .

You haven't looked at the evidence about either the flood or about Michael Quinn.

Dendrochronology refutes it too

"The idea that God transported the animals to and from other planets for Noah's flood, supports this valid evidence."

Then why did Noah even need the Ark?

"I should point out, that all the many stories in different cultures suggest the flood of Noah happened."

If the flood actually happened, how did these cultures survive to pass down the story?

I wish I could adequately phrase what a comedian said about Noah's ark. "Are you telling me that a pair of penguins walked and swam all the way from Antarctica to the Middle East?"

". . . and then back again."

Look at my first post. I agreed with the first poster about Noah collecting animals from his location, then, answered the strange things in Mormonism. The non-believers want to argue with me, and I don't even care if they are believers or non-believers. We are all equals. If I can't be treated as a equal person using reasoning, then that's not my fault.

Where there is an abundance of evidence, there is little need for belief.

Just as all opinions aren't equal--some opinions are better informed--reasoning isn't inherently equal. Reasoning from evidence is stronger than from assumptions. Justified assumptions are stronger than other assumptions. Fewer assumptions is stronger reasoning than from more assumptions.

You routinely violate these principles in your claims and so your claims are dismissedand ridiculed.

Are you saying I should bring in all the facts about intelligent design vs evolution that has been going on for 200 years that never ends? If it could be proven under the current combative assumptions by the evidence. then everyone would believe the same think and debate new theories as they are invented based on established facts.

After decades of debating with no conclusions, I simply read what the Bible says and created better assumptions that neither side can refute, and therefore, I believe the new thinking is true.

What? Evolutionists are still trying to sell us on random chance theories and probability models and create all kinds of static assumptions of isotope decay that cannot be proven true. ID still argues the watch theory that has been around for ever, as well as the dumb theories about a 6,000 year earth that become mortal when Eve at the apple. No thanks.

I want closure on the genetic changes by evolution by chance and mutation. We can't verify the theory. The theory violates what we see happening all around us every day. Furthermore, population growth rates on earth do not fit current evolutions theory that is based on genetic assumptions. I believe in genetic changes over billions of years, but I believe God changed the genetics directly to remove chance from the equation, and He did it, I theorize, on other planets over billions of years from a one cell organism.

Genesis Chapter 1, I claim, is about the creation of the spirit and soul and not the physical body, completely changing the debate into something else and removing the irrational time assumptions that everyone argues over. I believe that the earth is only 200,000 years old based on the evidence we have found and the populations growth rates that is just plain mathematics.

Have any of you played with an Excel spreadsheet to play with the numbers to develop your assumptions? I spend two weeks doing it until I felt comfortal that man has been on the planet for 150,000 years and experience a few disasters to keep the population controlled, plus I believe in highly advanced civilizations that used lethal injections to control the population because they were willing to die to serve society because they believed in reincarnation.

Go do the math on an Excel spreadsheet. That is what changed my mind about evolution for billions of years on our planet. The compounded growth rates do not work based on the older theories. Based on the numbers, I assume this earth was created mortal 200,000 years ago and God gave 50,000 years for the vegetations and animals to multiply. The men and women came from different mortal planets with the different races 150,000 years ago, but the population was controlled by lethal injections. That is the only thing that makes rational sense to me to factor in the population growth rates. Do the math, and then you will understand what my reasoning is based on. I already said this once, but apparently, no one was listening.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2018 02:29AM by anonthegreat.

I assume the people did not fly here in space ships but God transported them supernaturally passed the Van Allen radiation belts that are lethal. Many that had space ships went to underground cities and bases to escape the flood. Sometime after the flood, they came out of hiding to build a pyramid called the tower of Babel. Their objective was to build one pyramid city, then two, then four, etc., until they took over the outer earth again. God said they built one pyramid and God confused the languages, because He reasoned, if He didn't do it, they would accomplish their occult pyramid plans to create water and electricity by occult power for the people to enjoy.

These ideas are from the Bible and the current trend toward explaining the ETs that have been appearing on earth since the 1940s. They look human, but those that are involved see visions from God to show them symbolically what is in their hearts to protect them from knowing where they live. They believe it is what they really look like.

God wants us to presume they are from outer space, and at the same time, he wants them to believe God is on their side to protect where they live, which He is doing. When they figure out Lucifer is lying, and he is Ra of the ETs and Lucifer of the Satanists, everyone will discover Lucifer is lying to them about the Cosmic War by using the occult powers of the Creator, Yahweh, to teach us to love Yahweh's power to turn everyone at the bottom into slaves rather than to live in the circle of unity relationship to love reason and His Character and discard the pyramid power of the occult. I can't deny the scientific evidence of all the buried pyramids on earth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2018 02:36AM by anonthegreat.

For example, if we escalate the compounded growth rate at the time of the flood for 8 people, the population is equal to the estimated total population in the 1300AD to 1400AD at 0.5% growth rate per year. After the 1800s and improved medical science, the growth rates increased, and today the world population growth rate is doubled at about 1% per year. Do the math. In 500 year the population is horrendous and in 1000 years, there us about 4 square feet of living space for everyone on the planet, excluding the water, but including the mountains and North and South poles.

I'm talking basic epistemology. How do we know what we think we know. What constitutes evidence. How do we apply confidence intervals to our views.

Do you have a reality measuring stick.

You seem to have no grasp of these concepts.

Eternity and God is separate from mortality, and there is no causal relationship to eternal life and mortal life. That is the base meaning of holy, which means separated, which has nothing to do with sin.

As we gather light by our experience to know good and evil, we take the light into eternity after the resurrection, and everyone is happy with what light we receive for it what was decided in the first incarnation into a mortal body. The spirit-orb inside the soul decides before the first mortal body. Many believers do not want to experience death and pain a second time, so they don't reincarnate, but they wait for the resurrection.

Lucifer's plan is to keep reincarnating forever to deceive humans to work for him to create eternal life by genetics, which he won't be able to do, so everyone will turn away from the liar. Only God can fiddle with the genetics to create life and death. Lucifer cannot look inside at his thoughts, much like a child, and that is the grand truth he keeps from mortals because they have a skill he can't do.

Jesus said, those who sin more will love him more after they are forgiven. The only sin that is not forgiven is defined in Matt 12, which is to claim the miracles of the Holy Spirit are from the devil. Atheists cannot commit this sin because they don't believe in God, so they will not be thrown into hell fire to have their spirit-orb reincarnated. Jesus taught just the opposite of what theologians teach us.

The reward of light in eternity is based on what we asked for, and God gives us the experience in life to give us the light we asked for. The more light we ask for, the more difficult the path will be in mortality. Some souls did not want the pain because they wanted less light. I mentioned my dream I had recently, and if I went back to my twenties knowing what I know now, I would pick a different path because it was too painful. But I do not regret what I know today about good and evil. I am achieving the purpose I came here for. Others want less light, and they are on an easier path without pain. They suffer a little pain but not a lot of pain. We each have our own private path. This paradigm will change when the third temple is built by immortals and translation is as common as death is today.

Mortality has laws, and the Golden Rule maximizes our happiness as a mortal based on the Ten Commandments, simply stated, God invites us to make a rainbow covenant with Him to not be a thief, which true sin we promise to avoid, and it is easy to do, if we define sin properly. If a prostitute is selling her body to survive, she is not sinning as a thief, but she is in survival mode. Theft is in the heart not the carnal body. She is not breaking the Ten Commandments. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes to teach them they are not sinners if they are forced to be a prostitute to survive and feed her family, especially women who had lost their husbands and had no means of making money. They loved Him for the true teaching of the commandments, but the religious people hated him.

Eternity has no laws for there is no law against the Holy Spirit, God works with pure knowledge, but we work with belief in knowledge, either true knowledge of false knowledge. In mortality we are expected to learn the truth with our brains. To learn about eternal truth that lead us into the first heaven of the heart (spirit) as we read the Bible and ask God to show us the truth rather than sign-seeking miracles to ask him whether the book of Mormons is true. Mormons are trained to be sign-seekers of God's power rather than to just let the grace of God work with each persons path.

All paths lead to God. The atheists are closer to God than believers because they have tossed away all irrational thinking, in my view. Having a definition of the three parts of heaven is the key to removing the cobwebs of Mormonism, and you can query my post about the three heavens elsewhere. Paul defines them, and the ideas can be deduced by reasoning it out using 1 Cor 15 and 1 Cor 3.

As you subscribe to random access reality there is no reason to give your words any credence. Word salad pretending at reality.

What you assert without evidence is to be dismissed without evidence.

I do not believe in random access reality, and I am being very careful not to expose your ignorance and embarrass you publicly. If you want to persist, you will give me permission to do that. If not, I am fine with stopping here.

Please embarrass me.

As a spectator, I was kinda hoping you'd say that.
This should be fun :)

Probably won't get a response.

The scientific method states we can only make theories and assumptions to make an hypothesis, and if the hypothesis is proven to be false, then we need to modify our assumptions until they can't be proven false.

Your ideas are not scientifically thought out. I use the scientific method to think. You don't. Do I need to embarrass you further, or do we stop here? We use models to represent ideas, and we have no real knowledge, but the models are illusions we cannot prove are true.

God knows. Humans believe. All of the knowledge you or I have is belief, whether it is a theory or memory. The books you are reading are really dumb ideas because the scientific method proves the premises they create about knowledge itself are faulty.

I'll jump in for doblogger real quick:

a) the scientific method doesn't say what you claim it says.
b) you don't, in fact, use the scientific method
c)_your claim that "God knows" has no supporting evidence of any kind (a clear demonstration of you *not* using the scientific method)

I'd reconsider who's being embarrassed if I were you.

Most people are taught as teenagers the scientific method proves things, so the believe it:

https://sciencebob.com/science-fair-ideas/the-scientific-method/
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

But as we get older, and become scientists, we know these postulates are for children because they are not ready for the truth that we believe we don't know.

Then we learn the scientific method is this:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

The word "know" is used by humans because we are not tying to figure out things we can't know from our perceptions of belief based on our reality. We are atoms, but not flesh and blood bodies. What we see is an illusion. Belief becomes knowing based on reason and experience. God is not a body, He is spirit, so only our spirit can know Him based on reason and belief. God knows. We believe. We know things based on the five senses. But we can't see the truth. We believe.

I'm not embarassed.

anonthegreat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The scientific method states we can only make
> theories and assumptions to make an hypothesis,
> and if the hypothesis is proven to be false, then
> we need to modify our assumptions until they can't
> be proven false.

This is not the scientific method. The method is not about assumptions and hypothesis at its base. The scientific method is empirical, that is evidence based. It is based on "this is the evidence we have. How do we explain this evidence?"

That explanation, a hypotheses, usually makes a testable prediction. A hypotheses that offers no testable predictions
is unverifiable. And also not falsifiable. This does not make it true. We have multiple hypotheses for a Theory of Everything that we can not disprove. They are not all simultaneously true and all of them may be false.

Disproving is only one part of the method. Support for a hypotheses comes from its predictions being supported in further testing and development. When a lot of support is generated, a hypotheses becomes a theory and is generally accepted. But this is PROVISIONAL on future evidence. It can ALWAYS be overturned by future evidence.

Generally, science progresses through corroborating observations-usually of the predictions-not disproof. Science also progresses through failure, and should also be documented to indicate paths that are dead ends (within the current ability).

So the scientific method is not to take a piece of evidence, such as the donation of a 100 million to ASU and build a conspiracy of LDS church leaders and Michael Quinn. On it's own, the donation as evidence only needs an origin explanation. Where did the money come from is the basic explanation of the donation. That explains the original evidence. Discovering that evidence may uncover other evidence of interest on related or unrelated topics. But you didn't even look for other evidence about Quinn and his life and the timeline. You leapt to wildly unsupported conclusions on assumptions not in evidence.


> Your ideas are not scientifically thought out. I
> use the scientific method to think. You don't.

Very few, if any, of my ideas about the world are my own. They are the product of the reports of work and investigation by others that have a verifiable reliable path behind them.

As I cannot prove most of the modern science claims myself with what I have available, nor with my own skill, I must put less confidence in these claims than in those things I can verify myself. But that confidence can be high because of the multiple independent reliability demonstrated in those independent sources.

To say that my thoughts aren't scientifically thought out is strange as their source is scientific reports. And I've given you very little of my own thoughts except as disapproval of yours. So unless you're a mind reader, your claim is simply unfounded. I'll let the insult within pass without further comment. I've certainly been insulting to you.

To say you use the scientific method to think is also odd. Very little of your claims are evidential. They are mostly theoretical and you claim they are valid until your assumptions are disproven.

But no. I can assume an infinity of things all of which I know are false. Indeed, I enjoy reading science fiction and fantasy in which such assumptions are rampant and false. They have a baseline which is consistent with what would be science, but diverge with other assumptions. Yet within that story, they're not disproven.

Assuming alone offers no explanatory power. The burden of disproof is not on others. The famous analogy for this is Russell's Teapot. A teapot too small to be seen with telescopes or radar orbits the sun somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. I can assume this. You can not disprove this.

When you want to use an assumption, you must supply enough reasoning to warrant that assumption. Which the teapot example does not.

You assume God. I do not. What justifies your assumption that God exists and is active in the universe? As you are making the assumption and assertion, you must justify it's use.

Merely stating your assumption is insufficient as there are infinite unjustifiable assumptions one can make. And certainly most if not all will be false.

> Do
> I need to embarrass you further, or do we stop
> here? We use models to represent ideas, and we
> have no real knowledge, but the models are
> illusions we cannot prove are true.

I'm not embarassed. But you can try some more if it pleases you.

> God knows.

Not in evidence. Not justified in assumption.

> Humans believe. All of the knowledge
> you or I have is belief, whether it is a theory or
> memory.

Maybe, and thus epistemology and evidence. But on your own statement, you diminish your own claims. Your statement indicates that the scientific method at best is only your belief. I think I've shown that your belief is not in the scientific method but in your own unwarranted assumptions.

>The books you are reading are really dumb
> ideas because the scientific method proves the
> premises they create about knowledge itself are
> faulty.

The books I read indicate that we can know almost nothing. We can have varying levels of confidence in various claims and interpretations. Evidence is the strongest basis for confidence.

This discussion was provoked because you implied I didn't know epistemology. If you are not embarrassed, I obviously made a false assumption about you, but I don't know you, and those who emotional react are not as emotionally strong as you are. I didn't want to get into the discussion if you could be embarrassed. I don't know you.

That being said, the discussion was to address your comments on epistemology. That is cool that you are not embarrassed, but you did make a false assumption about me. I was addressing your books that were brought up to discredit my writing, when I don't believe in the presumptions that are made, and yet, your last line of the post is more in agreement with my ideas. It would be much more productive in here to avoid the slamming of one another and treat each other as equals, both having a brain to reason it out, in my opinion. If you want, I can address the tangents you surfaced if you want to continue. PS. I would qualify your last line as "validated evidence" to make it in harmony with my beliefs, and the Jesus is the truth, so the Bible does have truth to believe in. We can know the truth, and the truth can set us free.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 04:13PM by anonthegreat.

The books I referenced state the same conclusion I did.

You can start your defense with your Noah claims. Justify your assumptions.

Actually, I prefer to start with my prediction methods that satisfy the scientific method. We can get to Noah's flood after we haggle out the scientific method and that I am using it. Is that OK with you?

Prediction methods don't satisfy the scientific method. The explanatory hypithese generates predictions. The method is irrelevant.

You wrote:
"Disproving is only one part of the method. Support for a hypotheses comes from its predictions being supported in further testing and development. When a lot of support is generated, a hypotheses becomes a theory and is generally accepted. But this is PROVISIONAL on future evidence. It can ALWAYS be overturned by future evidence."


Is the predictions part of the scientific method or not? I claim they are just like you did in your first post. The prediction method I use is part of the scientific method itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 10:13PM by anonthegreat.

But you don't apply scientific methods to your initial assumptions--or rather axioms. That vitiates the entire subsequent effort.

oh no, you are right. We have no knowledge of ourselves, but all knowledge comes from outside ourselves. Therefore, you let the facts supposedly chose for you. But I don't do that because it is a form of slavery, and if we do that we cannot control our beliefs. I am selective about the valid facts I believe. The facts do not choose for me.

The facts do not choose reality for me.

What statement for you to make.

As you subscribe to random access reality there is no reason to give your words any credence. Word salad pretending at reality.

What you assert without evidence is to be dismissed without evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2018 07:25PM by dogblogger.

Only an anti-[long] could ever suppose that 2 penguins didn't make that two-way journey. Next time I get up at the Rameumptom on Fast/Testimony meeting to give my monthly monologue I'm going to have to bear extra strong testimony of that sacred event. I'd feel sorry for the rest of the penguins who God drowned in the flood waters but as I'm conditioned through the loving Correlation program to never doubt God that simply isn't possible for me to feel real sorrow for the drowned penguins or even the penguins who had to waddle all that distance on their two-way journey.

I think all of the thinking had been done. Right until Mrs Noah bent over.

Some TBM family members visited the Kentucky ARK Experience and thought it was "awesome", especially the baby dinosaurs.
I visited the Gateway ARCH in Missouri and found it amazing.
At least my visit was reality not fantasy.

heard it was moon water....

https://creationandscience.wordpress.com/tag/flood/

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/05/10/3754825.htm

Forget the animals... what about the plants?? How would vegetation survive being submerged (presumably by salt water if global) for over a month and a half? (I don’t remember exactly how long they were in the boat)

The whole thing is so patently absurd I t’s beyond worth even discussing.

No need to look for an ark. Just look for the extreme genetic bottleneck in the animal species that survived. For that matter, the true miracle of Noah’s flood is that any ark-reliant humans or animals survived at all given the lack of genetically viable populations that eventually disembarked on Mt Aarat.

Good point.

If there had been a global flood, there would have been a complete disruption of all civilizations that could be seen in the archeological record. And whatever species that remained, including humans, would have rapidly died out because the minimum viable reproductive population for complex animal life is not two, or seven, or eight, but more like 100-200.